Omarchy has changed its Kitty configuration after a security issue was identified with allow_remote_control yes.

That setting allows Kitty’s remote-control protocol to accept commands from terminal output, meaning untrusted output could potentially execute commands as the current user. Kitty itself defaults this setting to no; the exposure came from Omarchy explicitly enabling it so other parts of the desktop could query the active terminal’s working directory.

The change disables remote control by default and migrates existing explicit yes settings to no. Users affected by the migration need to fully close and reopen Kitty, as existing processes remain exposed until they exit.

There is a small trade-off: Omarchy can no longer reliably determine the active Kitty tab/pane’s working directory via its socket, so new terminal or Files launches may occasionally fall back to the home directory.

The associated migration tests reportedly pass, although no live Kitty test was run in the test environment.

all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 63 points 1 month ago (1 child)

Clearly the results of either being high on slop or a literal mass exploiter

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 46 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • [–] 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    Omarchy can no longer reliably determine the active Kitty tab/pane’s working directory via its socket

    Imagine this as the reason to allow remote access without questions. I watched an interview and he is proud to fix those issues (there were a few more security issues of this stupidity class) and thinks this is totally normal. And over time after fix after fix, Omarchy will become secure. He admits Omarchy is unsecure at this time. Edit: I should probably link to the interview in question: Invidious or YouTube

    The users are just beta testers, risking getting hacked. I could not trust this project. Even if all issues are fixed, who says no new security issues will make into the project? Omarchy is worse than Ubuntu and Manjaro combined.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    It's different, like the cybertruck. Different doesn't mean better but it sure does help point out why things were done the way they were.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago

    This reminds me of the Docker issue they fixed in Omarchy recently. Basically you could get root through the docker socket, because the default user groups included the docker group.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago

    This is what happens when you let someone vibe code your distro's config

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    In Kitty’s defense, the docs mention the risks involved with full remote control, and there several ways to control the scope of permitted actions.

    It’s tricky though. I’d like my coding agent to be able to control the terminal, but I’ve found it harder to sandbox kitty than, say, a multiplexer like tmux/zellij. Herdr is a bit less obvious.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago*

    It has its uses, I think the issue mainly stems from having it on by default rather than asking than explaining the risks on first use and asking the user what they'd like to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago

    Am I going to hear about every insignificant development with Omarchy now because DHH ingratiated himself with a bunch of tech fascists?

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago

    Nazi Linux is going well

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    I might get downvoted to hell and back for this, but can we stop talking about this piece of work distro? I don't think the project needs any more PR, period, it's what the loser who made it wants. Let the people who for some reason trust this collection of dotfiles and scripts do so in their own foolish bubble.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    13M USD budget "distro" btw

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    The funny thing is I think windows does this. I may be wrong

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    That does not allow remote code execution. An attacker still needs a vector like an SSH session to be able to control kitty. And at that point, if they already have a shell session, they don't need kitty to do damage.

    edit: giving access to other programs is not remote execution, but obviously not a good default.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    It actually also allows other programs to execute code through Kitty, example if you cat a file that has escapes in it. It would allow Kitty to execute that code when you never intended it... But like why does kitty even have that as a feature? But they've since updated the config to be set to socket only instead of yes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    Having the feature seems pretty in line with the general Linux philosophy. Let the user decide, even if that means they screw it up. Same reason you can muck up an install by just running updates on storage that doesn’t have enough room to do so. It’s up to the end user to understand, verify, and choose to execute.

  • source
  • parent